So, You deny there was a Civil war taking place?
No, not at all. It is only logical that there would be a civil war in a country where the governing body has been forced out of office, leaving a
void of power that is to be claimed by whoever will rise to the top of the pack.
However, the fact that there was a civil war does not somehow change the fact that the Taliban were in significant control of the country- in fact, so
significant that the US chose to talk to Taliban officials in times of diplomacy (ie, discussions on oil pipeline during the 90s, or when they
demanded OBL be handed over to them). The fact that the US does not "negotiate with terrorists," meaning that they refuse to recognize non-aligned
organizations as foreign government as being illegitimate (such as Hamas after democratic elections in Gaza), does not change the actual situation
Now, Do you Deny the Pakistani ISI moved right on in with their little ("religious students")
I don't know about "religious students" but it is beyond obvious that the Taliban have always been the offspring of the ISI. This goes into a
whole new dimension of geopolitics because Afghanistan is actually a proxy battleground for Pakistan and India- The Taliban are Pakistani proxies, and
the Northern Alliance are Indian.
And what is even more ironic is the fact that the CIA and the ISI have been working hand in hand since at the earliest, the early 1980s when the great
Soviet menace seeped into the valleys of Afghanistan.
I didn't know impressing you was a requirement for membership here at ATS.
It's not, but respect is a two-way street. I don't expect some piss-poor "Taliban is the bad guys" story within a serious geopolitical
discussion, because people who are serious about this realize that this is all grey area and not some black and white/good vs evil struggle that the
George W. Bush doctrine dictated. Such ideology is for those who believe in it, not for those who pull the strings.
The Mujahedin and the Taliban although similar roots are two entirely different animals. Yet, You seem to forget or over look that bit of
No, not at all. I never said they were the same. In fact, I said that the Taliban movement evolved from the Afghan mujahideen. The mujahideen was a
generalization for the islamic fighters' resistance movement against the Soviets. The remnants of the mujahideen, being the hardened combat veterans
and ideological fundamentalists that they happened to be, splintered into factions seeking control of the entire country, hence the civil war. The
Taliban consisted of mujahideen, supported by the ISI.
I see a little of that Blow back occurring in Syria and Iran for their contributions to the wonderfull world of espionage and asymmetric
warfare in the region. But that's the topic of another thread.
Which is? The Kurds?
Because when the Soviets pulled out we stopped supporting the much larger coalition of Afghan Warlords and the "Students AKA Taliban" were
able to get the upper hand on the rest. But again you seem to always leave out those important details.
That is most of my point. The US no longer had much interest in little, desolate Afghanistan so they abandoned it, leaving its internal struggles to
the conflicting factions that the US originally backed to this point. What else is to be expected from such a situation, where tribal factions are
left to fight amongst themselves in a feudal Middle East state? Only the hardest, most experienced and seemingly twisted group would emerge on top.
The Taliban was the product of this situation created out of foreign meddling (both the US and the USSR were to blame for this bastard child). But
what they happened to be, does not justify what was done to them.
I'm using a fair source to support my claims. What have you provided?
Knowledge gained through official and informal instruction of such subject, along with a fundamental understanding of Hobbesian nature of human
Yes, Yes I'm the product of the American Public school system etc etc etc
My comment wasn't so much about American schools, as it was about the nationalist American perspective vs other perspectives. We up here tend to
spend time observing just how corrupt American instruction is, just to understand how Americans can accept their geopolitical role and
A few American Special Forces supporting the Entire Northern Alliance army is not an "Invasion" [Another of your omissions]
Among special forces from the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germa, Russia (apparently); oh and waves and waves of airstrikes. Not at all dissimiliar
from the Libyan "revolution". My country's media was definitely reporting it as an invasion with our boots on the ground at the time.